We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Comparison of magnetic resonance feature tracking with CSPAMM HARP for the assessment of global and regional layer specific strain.
International Journal of Cardiology 2017 October 2
PURPOSE: Layer specific strain assessment is increasingly being employed clinically. Cardiac magnetic resonance (MR) Feature Tracking (FT) is considered to be an adequate alternative for strain assessment. The aim of this study is to investigate the feasibility of FT derived layer specific strain assessment.
METHODS: CSPAMM and SSFP-Cine sequences were acquired in 38 individuals (19 patients with HFpEF, 19 controls) in identical midventricular short-axis locations. Global endocardial-, midmyocardial-, epicardial- peak systolic circumferential strain (PSCS) and regional epicardial PSCS were calculated and intra- as well inter-observer variability were assessed.
RESULTS: FT derived global epicardial and endocardial PSCS (7.9±2.3%; -19.6±4.9%) were significantly lower than tagging derived global epicardial and endocardial PSCS (-13.2±2.8%; -32.3±5.9%) (each p<0.001), while FT derived endocardial PSCS and tagging derived midmyocardial PSCS showed a strong correlation (r=0.71) and no significant differences. Global intra- and inter-observer variability of FT derived endocardial PSCS circumferential measures were acceptable (coefficient of variation 6.5% and 5.7%) while reproducibility of epicardial PSCS (coefficient of variation 16.8% and 18.1%) was poor.
CONCLUSION: The FT algorithm allows for reliable assessment of midmyocardial strain, while underestimating epicardial and endocardial strain and delivering less reproducible results than the gold standard of tagging.
METHODS: CSPAMM and SSFP-Cine sequences were acquired in 38 individuals (19 patients with HFpEF, 19 controls) in identical midventricular short-axis locations. Global endocardial-, midmyocardial-, epicardial- peak systolic circumferential strain (PSCS) and regional epicardial PSCS were calculated and intra- as well inter-observer variability were assessed.
RESULTS: FT derived global epicardial and endocardial PSCS (7.9±2.3%; -19.6±4.9%) were significantly lower than tagging derived global epicardial and endocardial PSCS (-13.2±2.8%; -32.3±5.9%) (each p<0.001), while FT derived endocardial PSCS and tagging derived midmyocardial PSCS showed a strong correlation (r=0.71) and no significant differences. Global intra- and inter-observer variability of FT derived endocardial PSCS circumferential measures were acceptable (coefficient of variation 6.5% and 5.7%) while reproducibility of epicardial PSCS (coefficient of variation 16.8% and 18.1%) was poor.
CONCLUSION: The FT algorithm allows for reliable assessment of midmyocardial strain, while underestimating epicardial and endocardial strain and delivering less reproducible results than the gold standard of tagging.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app